Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?

Setanta wrote:

It can be accomplished very simply and easily, too. I suspect that the boy had to dig around to find what he thought would be conclusive evidence . . . i guess he thinks the rest of us are too stupid to check up on his sources.

I have not taken as position on the question, and said that the science seems to not be settled. Only if and when you show that the science has been settled will you have shown me to be wrong. I don't think this will happen, as I am rarely wrong about what the evidence shows. I am also well aware of how science has been corrupted by money and politics on controversial issues. All science on a controversial issue such as this must be closely looked at to see if it is real science or if it is rather pressure group PR. The homosexual pressure group has for decades been one of the most militant such movements around. Criticising my evidence does nothing to make your case, if you want to be sway people such as me who require evidence in support of a position before adopting said position you will need to make a case. In the mean time i will continue to take the position that we don't have the information that we need to decide the question.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

It can be accomplished very simply and easily, too. I suspect that the boy had to dig around to find what he thought would be conclusive evidence . . . i guess he thinks the rest of us are too stupid to check up on his sources.

I have not taken as position on the question, and said that the science seems to not be settled. Only if and when you show that the science has been settled will you have shown me to be wrong. I don't think this will happen, as I am rarely wrong about what the evidence shows. I am also well aware of how science has been corrupted by money and politics on controversial issues. All science on a controversial issue such as this must be closely looked at to see if it is real science or if it is rather pressure group PR. The homosexual pressure group has for decades been one of the most militant such movements around. Criticising my evidence does nothing to make your case, if you want to be sway people such as me who require evidence in support of a position before adopting said position you will need to make a case. In the mean time i will continue to take the position that we don't have the information that we need to decide the question.

For someone that claims to not take a position until the science is settled, you seem to have a fairly strong opinion.

Here is a report on several studies of children of homosexual vs those of heterosexuals. It seems that most of the studies listed here are pretty conclusive in that there is no difference in children based on parents sexuality.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpchildren.html
You could claim the source is biased but you are free to examine any and all of the studies they listed.

Your sources are obviously biased and provide no real science as I pointed out earlier.

An examination of the other major studies in the field finds psychologists drawing a similar conclusion. However, several child development specialists - including some of the researchers themselves - say the studies of homosexual parents and their children are limited, as are the conclusions one can draw from them. ''There are a limited number of people involved, and no longitudinal studies that follow the children over several years,'' Dr. Kirkpatrick said.

''The field is in its infancy,'' said Eleanor Galenson, a clinical professor of psychology and co-director of the infant psychiatric unit at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. ''You have to have a group of children you know well and have studied over a period of years until adolescence. That's when the studies should show definitively whether there are ill effects.''

Given the importance of the topic, the numerous weaknesses of the other published studies in the area, coupled with the fact that a cursory examination of the children of 14 rather casually obtained transsexuals/homosexuals is being employed not only as "a classic" effort, but somehow also as a definitive study, it appears appropriate that our small, randomly obtained sample be factored into the equation. We make no claims that ours is "representative" of homosexual parenting - but others have been permitted to make such claims with considerably less data. More extensive research is required before traditional opinion or common sense is discarded in favor of the rather extravagant contentions of sexual activists

Anti-gay marriage activists repeatedly assert that they have extensive research to back up the claim that heterosexual parents are better for kids. But they either cite studies that fail basic tests of science or misquote the conclusions of scientifically sound studies.



For example, the Virginia Family Foundation puts forward the following to support that state's proposed draconian constitutional amendment banning both gay marriage and civil unions: "The most important reason to protect traditional marriage is for the well-being of children . . . . A plethora of studies show that children benefit emotionally, physically, economically and educationally in a traditional, two-parent home." What the Foundation neglects to mention is that the studies it has in mind focus on heterosexual rather than gay parents.

So, why is your mind made up hawkeye?

It seems you are looking for reasons to not believe any studies rather than actually looking at the studies. Not a single one of your sources is a study. Most of them are biased reviews of studies. You aren't looking for science. You are looking for excuses.

Kids want to be accepted as normal. I postulate that any problems due to having gay parents are the outcome of discrimination, disrespect, un-acceptance from people like the author of this thread.

Ayayiyiyi. I didn't say anything about a likely bad outcome. I said something about a potential bad outcome. In the area I live in, same-sex parents aren't all that infrequent. People are getting used to the idea. Kids are ok. I've met some adult kids of same-sex parents, even, who seem fine. Of course, I am the adult child of opposite sex parents and I have my own host of issues. I really don't see the big deal (and I am talking from experience).

anecdotal stories are not enough basis to reach a conclusion for such an important societal choice.

Kids want to be accepted as normal. I postulate that any problems due to having gay parents are the outcome of discrimination, disrespect, un-acceptance from people like the author of this thread.

I expect the science of homosexuality to be dirty, therefor I don't accept anything that has not been determined to be clean by someone whom I have some faith in.

hawkeye10 wrote:

I expect the science of homosexuality to be dirty, therefor I don't accept anything that has not been determined to be clean by someone whom I have some faith in.

Yes, that means you will only accept science that gives you the answer you presently believe in. But we knew that already.

You are just trying to pretend you are open minded. We knew that too.

In order for there to be a standoff on evidence you would need to present some. Currently my position wins by default.

hawkeye10 wrote:

In order for there to be a standoff on evidence you would need to present some. Currently my position wins by default.

This is some weird misconception, and one that comes up surprisingly often in these forum discussions.

If you come up with some laughably weak argument or bolster your argument with some laughably weak evidence, and nobody bothers to rebut it, that doesnt mean you "win by default". Your evidence is still laughably weak. It just means nobody can be bothered to spend much time on it.

If anything, really weak arguments and evidence can be among the least likely to be properly rebutted, just because they make immediately clear that it's not worth the effort.